Précis: The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal of a decision of the Federal Court which found that a claim brought against a freight forwarder and preforming carrier was subject to a 9 month limitation period and therefore time barred.
Full SummaryCami Automotive, Inc v. Westwood Shipping Lines Inc, 2009 FC 664, 2012 FCA 16
Précis: The Federal Court of Appeal upheld a decision of the Federal Court holding that a rail carrier could choose the limitation that was the most beneficial to it.
Full SummaryCami Automotive, Inc v. Westwood Shipping Lines Inc, 2010 FC 26
This was a case involving a claim against a rail carrier and vessel for damage to cargo. The plaintiff recovered only the limitation amount of $50,000. The vessel and rail carrier each claimed entitlement to double costs on the basis that the rail carrier had paid the plaintiff Cdn$50,000 and the vessel had made an offer to settle in the …
Full SummaryBoutique Jacob Inc. v. Pantainer Ltd., 2008 FCA 85
This was an action by the Plaintiff for damage to cargo caused during a train derailment. The Plaintiff had contracted with the first Defendant, Pantainer, for the carriage of its cargo from Hong Kong to Montreal. Pantainer then sub-contracted the entire carriage to OOCL. OOCL in turn contracted with Canadian Pacific for the carriage of the cargo by rail from …
Full SummaryAlcoa, Inc. v. CP Ships (UK) Ltd., 2007 ONCA 686
The Plaintiff contracted with the first Defendant for the carriage of a cargo of aluminum from Massena, New York to Italy. The first Defendant had an arrangement with the second Defendant for the performance of the inland portion of the carriage from Massena to Montreal. It was intended that the first Defendant would then complete the carriage by sea from …
Full SummaryValmet Paper Machinery Inc. v. Hapag-Lloyd AG, 2004 BCCA 518
The Plaintiff was the shipper of a piece of heavy equipment from Helsinki to Port Alberni, British Columbia. The equipment was carried by sea from Helsinki to Vancouver and by truck from Vancouver to Port Alberni. Ten kilometres short of its destination the equipment fell off the truck and was a constructive total loss. The Defendant motor carrier admitted liability …
Full SummaryBraber Equipment Ltd. v. Fraser Surrey Docks Ltd., 1999 BCCA 579
This case involved damage to a container of equipment admittedly caused by the negligence of the terminal operator. The terminal operator sought to limit its liability to $100.00 per package pursuant to a limitation clause contained in its tariff. The Court found, however, that the Plaintiff had no knowledge of the tariff and was not bound by it. The Plaintiff’s …
Full SummaryKodak v. Racine Terminal (Montreal) Ltd., 1999 CanLII 7750
This was an application for summary judgment by a cargo owner for damage to a shipment of paper. The cargo was damaged by the crane operator of the Defendant terminal during unloading. The only issue in the case was whether the terminal could rely upon a Himalaya clause contained in the bill of lading. Although there was no written contract …
Full Summary